Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Can I correctly assume you feel the same way about Crusade Play?

Not at all. Crusade has its flaws (primarily in how it only works for a narrow range of stories) but it does at least do something genuinely different from matched play. I would hope that in 10th GW uses their experience with the current version to fine-tune the concept and continue supporting an improved version of the format.

Open Play, especially using the Open War deck, has been a breath of fresh air and has reignited my passion for the game. It's the format that feels most like the 40k I remember from my early days in 4th Ed, when I played many times a week. I enjoy the entirety of the game front start to finish.

I'm really not sure how "ignore all the balance fixes and keep using the overpowered nonsense that GW banned for good reasons" and "add random rule changes to how units function" make the game simpler and easier to keep track of. Playing the standard secondaries your army is built to accomplish is far less mental load than remembering that, to give a couple example draws from the Open War deck, psykers get +1 to their tests and harsher perils or units automatically pass morale tests. All you've done is made it more likely that the outcome of the game is decided by whose army the RNG rule changes favor instead of the on-table decisions.

In all honesty, you can't judge the mode of play without playing it's bunch to actually see how it feels when you've got models on the table, not just thoughts on it.

 Blndmage wrote:
In all honesty, you can't judge the mode of play without playing it's bunch to actually see how it feels when you've got models on the table, not just thoughts on it.

Really? You need to play a bunch of games where you skip the movement and shooting phases entirely to know that it's a bad idea to do that?

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Open Play doesn’t mean no structure at all. The Open War Mission Pack https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Open-War-Cards-EN-2020 provides structure without being Narrative or Matched Play.

If you have structure you can just play normal matched play games. There is no need for a separate structured format with a different name.

It's a very different form of play;
- no secondaries
- no phase limits on stratagems
- I'm sure I'm missing things

It's a drastically different take on the same base rules. Even things like the dataslates are specifically for Matched Play, FAQ/erattas, however, apply to all modes of play.

"Do matched play, but make the balance worse" is not a format that needs to be supported.

Just because you don't like a format, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be supported.

By that logic, tournament matched play doesn't need support.

 Dysartes wrote:
Just because you don't like a format, doesn't mean it doesn't need to be supported.

By that logic, tournament matched play doesn't need support.

And just because one person likes a format doesn't mean it needs to be supported. Whether or not you personally like tournaments they are clearly a high-demand format. Open Play sees very little use and its "innovations" compared to normal matched play games are all horrible design. GW does not need to support a format that is just "play a matched play game, but make it less balanced" or "you have permission to change the rules, because everyone knows you can't change rules without a rule that allows you to do it".

Tournament matched play has been one of the biggest issues with 9th edition

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Can I correctly assume you feel the same way about Crusade Play?

Not at all. Crusade has its flaws (primarily in how it only works for a narrow range of stories) but it does at least do something genuinely different from matched play. I would hope that in 10th GW uses their experience with the current version to fine-tune the concept and continue supporting an improved version of the format.

Open Play, especially using the Open War deck, has been a breath of fresh air and has reignited my passion for the game. It's the format that feels most like the 40k I remember from my early days in 4th Ed, when I played many times a week. I enjoy the entirety of the game front start to finish.

I'm really not sure how "ignore all the balance fixes and keep using the overpowered nonsense that GW banned for good reasons" and "add random rule changes to how units function" make the game simpler and easier to keep track of. Playing the standard secondaries your army is built to accomplish is far less mental load than remembering that, to give a couple example draws from the Open War deck, psykers get +1 to their tests and harsher perils or units automatically pass morale tests. All you've done is made it more likely that the outcome of the game is decided by whose army the RNG rule changes favor instead of the on-table decisions.

I’m not sure how foisting your opinion on the mode of play is really relevant to people who actually enjoy using it? Do you really need to be right instead of agreeing that some people enjoy things you don’t?

Besides, the beauty of Open Play is you can include as much or as little of Matched and Crusade Play as you and your opponent want to. Nothing says you can’t use points and that Matched Play Dataslate in your Open Play game. I know I have in the past.

 alextroy wrote:
I’m not sure how foisting your opinion on the mode of play is really relevant to people who actually enjoy using it? Do you really need to be right instead of agreeing that some people enjoy things you don’t?

It's a public discussion forum and the topic is "should Open Play and non-GT matched play continue to be supported as formats", not "do you personally enjoy a thing". Whether or not an individual enjoys them Open Play is a perversion of the entire point of a format and non-GT matched play is redundant.

Besides, the beauty of Open Play is you can include as much or as little of Matched and Crusade Play as you and your opponent want to. Nothing says you can’t use points and that Matched Play Dataslate in your Open Play game. I know I have in the past.

Why do you need a separate format that is just "you can use whatever rules you and your opponent agree to use"? Are you unable to make up your own rules if you don't have an official rule from GW giving you permission to do so?

I thought the topic was Where can I find the new Codex Guard Secondaries?

What do you gain by GW removing all support from Open Play?

Looks like 8 Pages from the Core Rulebook and the Open War Mission Pack deck. Maybe the occasional White Dwarf article.

Why all the hate for so little rules content? Everyone wants some structure to play their games around. Open Play is just a very bare structure compared to the very detailed and restricted structures of Narrative (Crusade), Matched Play, and Tournament Matched Play. Sometimes, people want to gather, move miniatures, roll dice, and have a victor without it being a total death match.

 alextroy wrote:
I thought the topic was Where can I find the new Codex Guard Secondaries?

A question which was answered in the very first post. Since then the topic has moved on to consolidation of formats and the broader question of what GW will do with formats in 10th.

What do you gain by GW removing all support from Open Play?

Removing 8 pages of bloat is far more value than anything Open Play as a format has ever provided.

Why all the hate for so little rules content? Everyone wants some structure to play their games around. Open Play is just a very bare structure compared to the very detailed and restricted structures of Narrative (Crusade), Matched Play, and Tournament Matched Play. Sometimes, people want to gather, move miniatures, roll dice, and have a victor without it being a total death match.

But what does Open Play add to this? Saying "lets do Open Play" tells you nothing about what game you're going to play. It could be a stripped-down version with objectives/stratagems/faction abilities/etc removed, or it could be GT book matched play except with PL instead of points. If Open Play didn't exist you'd have the exact same game experience, starting with the exact same negotiation about which rules you're going to play with.

And it's interesting that you say "without it being a total death match" when the base version of Open Play is literally three different missions where the sole objective is to kill the enemy, with the only difference being whether the two sides are equal in points or skewed to one player. I'd say that's a pretty good definition of "total death match".

Aecus Decimus wrote:
Open Play is a perversion

Ok, I need to stop you right here.

Can you explain how Open Play is perverse? Why in the world would that term apply to a freaking game?
You seem incredibly antagonistic and are throwing around some really heavy terms here that have no place in a game where we move toys around.

 Blndmage wrote:
Ok, I need to stop you right here.

Can you explain how Open Play is perverse? Why in the world would that term apply to a freaking game?
You seem incredibly antagonistic and are throwing around some really heavy terms here that have no place in a game where we move toys around.

Perhaps you don't know the meaning of the word if you think it's a "really heavy term"?

per·ver·sion
/pərˈvərZH(ə)n/
noun
noun: perversion; plural noun: perversions
1.
the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

The point of a game format is standardization. You have a standard matched play format so you can say "2000 points GT 2023" and everyone knows exactly what rules that game will be played with. You have a standard Crusade format so that you can bring your Crusade force to a new group and drop right in for a few games, with all of your narrative upgrades being fully compatible with everyone else in the group. Open Play is a perversion of that concept since its defining quality is a lack of standardization. Two games of Open Play could be using entirely different rules, far greater than the difference between GT and Crusade games. And if someone says "let's do Open Play" the only thing you know is that you need to have further conversation about what exactly they mean by that. GW has perverted the concept of a game format into something that is its polar opposite.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
per·ver·sion
/pərˈvərZH(ə)n/
noun
noun: perversion; plural noun: perversions
1.
the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

So, given that Open Play is far closer to the spirit of Rogue Trader than Tournament Matched Play, you'd agree that TMP is a perversion of what 40k is? Good to know.

 Dysartes wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:
per·ver·sion
/pərˈvərZH(ə)n/
noun
noun: perversion; plural noun: perversions
1.
the alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.

So, given that Open Play is far closer to the spirit of Rogue Trader than Tournament Matched Play, you'd agree that TMP is a perversion of what 40k is? Good to know.

Very true!
And how often do we hear about how badly the tournament meta is warped and distorted, compared to the style of game that even the rules writers play, it's very much a perverted version of the game.

Exactly. The real perversion is tournament play because it literally twists and distorts the rest of the game. It's a social game. You SHOULD need to discuss what you want out of the game with your opponent like with the games of yore that Warhammer evolved from. Not to say matched play is "bad" necessarily but it's spread like a virus and twisted everything else

 Dysartes wrote:
So, given that Open Play is far closer to the spirit of Rogue Trader than Tournament Matched Play, you'd agree that TMP is a perversion of what 40k is? Good to know.

Given that we are playing Warhammer 40k 9th edition and not Rogue Trader, no, I do not agree that 40k is a perversion of what 40k is. What some people decades ago did with an entirely different game has nothing to do with the modern game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
Very true!
And how often do we hear about how badly the tournament meta is warped and distorted, compared to the style of game that even the rules writers play, it's very much a perverted version of the game.

And yet that "perversion" is very popular and the focus of GW's support. People can give their personal opinions about it all they want but the reality is that tournaments and GT matched play are, if not the standard version of the game, at least one of two standard versions of the game alongside Crusade.

This is, of course, unrelated to the point about formats and what should be supported in 10th. Whether or not you personally like GT matched play it is the textbook definition of the use case for a format. Standardization is vital to that style of play and therefore it needs official standard rules from GW. Open Play is a perversion of the concept of a format because it is defined by a lack of standardization and saying "Open Play" tells you nothing about what kind of game you want to play. GT matched play has functional value, Open Play does not. GT matched play should continue to be supported, Open Play should be removed as useless rules bloat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Exactly. The real perversion is tournament play because it literally twists and distorts the rest of the game. It's a social game. You SHOULD need to discuss what you want out of the game with your opponent like with the games of yore that Warhammer evolved from. Not to say matched play is "bad" necessarily but it's spread like a virus and twisted everything else

Why should you need to discuss what you want out of the game? Why shouldn't the game be functional as written so that you can get straight to playing without having to negotiate how the rules will work? Pre-game negotiation should be viewed as a failure of game design, a point where the author wrote dysfunctional rules that require the players to fix the problem. If matched play has succeeded in killing off that nonsense the matched play should be praised for its accomplishments!

But I suppose if you really love that pre-game negotiation for some incomprehensible reason you can still do it even without an official format. "Let's do matched play but not use secondary objectives" is functionally equivalent to "let's do Open Play", "ok, what do you mean by Open Play?", "I want to do matched play but not use secondary objectives". Adding on the extra mention of Open Play adds nothing to the conversation, you still have to have the exact same pre-game discussion that you would have if Open Play didn't exist. And since it has no functional purpose it should be removed as rules bloat.

Much like the vast majority of Warhammer players, I have a suspicion that most folks that play Open Play aren't on this forum, or even follow the updates closely.

The GT Matched Play crowd is a vocal minority that gets more than it's fair share of attention from GW, due to the associations between GW and FLG.

 Blndmage wrote:
Much like the vast majority of Warhammer players, I have a suspicion that most folks that play Open Play aren't on this forum, or even follow the updates closely.

The GT Matched Play crowd is a vocal minority that gets more than it's fair share of attention from GW, due to the associations between GW and FLG.

Unfortunately we will never know. We can see that matched play is most of public 40k and gets the majority of GW's attention but your theory that you represent some kind of silent majority will never be more than speculation and anecdotes. But unfortunately I also can't prove you wrong, as you can always claim that I'm not seeing and counting some other hidden group of players.

Not that it really matters, of course. Even if matched play is a minority of the total player base it's still the group where a standard format has functional value. Open Play adds no functional value even if the people using it are 90% of the player base, their games would continue on exactly as normal if GW removed their official endorsement of it. And if a format adds no functional value to anyone it is rules bloat and must be removed.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:
So, given that Open Play is far closer to the spirit of Rogue Trader than Tournament Matched Play, you'd agree that TMP is a perversion of what 40k is? Good to know.

Given that we are playing Warhammer 40k 9th edition and not Rogue Trader, no, I do not agree that 40k is a perversion of what 40k is. What some people decades ago did with an entirely different game has nothing to do with the modern game.

By the definition you provided, 9th edition doesn't get to comment on the "original" spirit of the game - the original spirit was provided by Rogue Trader, given it is the original version of the game.

I'm sorry that you keep getting tripped up by your choice of words when you attack the preferences of others - perhaps there's a lesson for you here.

 Dysartes wrote:
By the definition you provided, 9th edition doesn't get to comment on the "original" spirit of the game - the original spirit was provided by Rogue Trader, given it is the original version of the game.

I'm sorry that you keep getting tripped up by your choice of words when you attack the preferences of others - perhaps there's a lesson for you here.

Nothing I said has anything to do with the original version of the game, even if you buy the argument that Rogue Trader is somehow more original than the actual game we're playing. You're the one who brought that up as a complete non sequitur to anything I had ever said.

Nor are the preferences of others really relevant. Play Open Play all you want, it's still pointless rules bloat and a perversion of the concept of a format and it can be removed without having any effect on your games.

Who made you the arbiter of everything 40k?
Other people enjoy the game in different ways. Live and let live.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Who made you the arbiter of everything 40k?
Other people enjoy the game in different ways. Live and let live.

They can continue to enjoy it without Open Play wasting space in the rules.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Who made you the arbiter of everything 40k?
Other people enjoy the game in different ways. Live and let live.

They can continue to enjoy it without Open Play wasting space in the rules.

I've been trying my best to explain why I and others prefer Open Play to Matched or Crusade Play.

Rather than have an adult conversation, you just ignore my posts and declare that the preferred method of play for a great many people is a waste of space.

How do you expect me to respond to that?

There's something like 30 Bolt weapons for Marines. Not counting different combis, unique weapons, or anything like that.
That is bloated, wasted rules.

Open Play is another way to play. You might not see the point-but others do. You can safely ignore any section that pertains solely to Open, and still enjoy 40k. But don't rag on others for having fun in a different way than you do.

 JNAProductions wrote:
There's something like 30 Bolt weapons for Marines. Not counting different combis, unique weapons, or anything like that.
That is bloated, wasted rules.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Open Play is another way to play. You might not see the point-but others do. You can safely ignore any section that pertains solely to Open, and still enjoy 40k. But don't rag on others for having fun in a different way than you do.

Please tell me exactly what Open Play existing as an official format adds to the game, given that the entire concept of Open Play is that it contains no standardized rules about how the game is played and you are required to create your own rules with your opponent before each game. How exactly is a game in 9th edition Open Play different from a game played in a hypothetical 10th edition where Open Play is not included?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blndmage wrote:
I've been trying my best to explain why I and others prefer Open Play to Matched or Crusade Play.

You have explained why you prefer to play a modified version of the game. You have not explained at all why giving an official label of Open™ Play™ to your modified version of the game adds anything of value, given that your version of Open™ Play™ has nothing to do with the version of Open™ Play™ played by anyone else.

(Assuming anyone else actually plays it. I remain highly skeptical of your supposed silent majority that very conveniently never interacts with anyone and can never be disproved.)

Considering 10th is, according to the rumour mill, a semi-full reboot... Probably pretty damn different.
Assuming 10th edition is mostly similar to 9th, it would leave those who don't want Matched Play with less of a default framework to work from-and while, to my knowledge, most people who play Open are chill with further modifying it, that doesn't mean lacking a default framework is a bad thing.

As for the false dilemma, I've seen you rail and rant and rave against PL and Open Play and other things people enjoy and have fun with. I don't recall you being nearly as strenuously against Marines being bloated to hell and back.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming 10th edition is mostly similar to 9th, it would leave those who don't want Matched Play with less of a default framework to work from-and while, to my knowledge, most people who play Open are chill with further modifying it, that doesn't mean lacking a default framework is a bad thing.

The whole point of Open Play is that there isn't a default framework. That's why I called it a perversion of the concept of a format, it is by definition a "do whatever you want" game where nothing is standardized. Open Play includes everything from "GT matched play but with PL instead of points" to "datasheets only, no stratagems/faction rules/etc and no objectives besides last man standing". Saying "Open Play" is wasted words, you still have to describe exactly what game you want and you can do that exactly the same way if Open Play is removed from the rules.

As for the false dilemma, I've seen you rail and rant and rave against PL and Open Play and other things people enjoy and have fun with. I don't recall you being nearly as strenuously against Marines being bloated to hell and back.

Your inability to find comments on a particular subject does not mean I hold a particular opinion. I do in fact think that marine rules bloat is stupid and GW needs to cut vast sections of the marine codex out, along with removing all of the special snowflake chapter-specific supplements.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Assuming 10th edition is mostly similar to 9th, it would leave those who don't want Matched Play with less of a default framework to work from-and while, to my knowledge, most people who play Open are chill with further modifying it, that doesn't mean lacking a default framework is a bad thing.

The whole point of Open Play is that there isn't a default framework. That's why I called it a perversion of the concept of a format, it is by definition a "do whatever you want" game where nothing is standardized. Open Play includes everything from "GT matched play but with PL instead of points" to "datasheets only, no stratagems/faction rules/etc and no objectives besides last man standing". Saying "Open Play" is wasted words, you still have to describe exactly what game you want and you can do that exactly the same way if Open Play is removed from the rules.

As for the false dilemma, I've seen you rail and rant and rave against PL and Open Play and other things people enjoy and have fun with. I don't recall you being nearly as strenuously against Marines being bloated to hell and back.

Your inability to find comments on a particular subject does not mean I hold a particular opinion. I do in fact think that marine rules bloat is stupid and GW needs to cut vast sections of the marine codex out, along with removing all of the special snowflake chapter-specific supplements.

Open Play is the most basic way to play, that doesn't mean there's no framework, it's just minimal.

The Open War deck adds a ton to it with only one objective being kill focused, all the rest have 1, but commonly more, objectives, a wider variety of deployment zones than even the Matched Play zones, and offers rules for when armies have differing PL/points totals, that are actually really cool.

 Blndmage wrote:
Open Play is the most basic way to play, that doesn't mean there's no framework, it's just minimal.

It's not that it's basic, it's that it's not standardized. Open Play includes the super-basic stripped down version of the game but it also includes versions of the game that are pretty much identical to GT matched play, as well as everything in between and any other customization you can think of. There is no single Open Play game in the way that there is a single GT matched play format, which is why Open Play is a perversion of the concept that should be removed.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Open Play is the most basic way to play, that doesn't mean there's no framework, it's just minimal.

It's not that it's basic, it's that it's not standardized. Open Play includes the super-basic stripped down version of the game but it also includes versions of the game that are pretty much identical to GT matched play, as well as everything in between and any other customization you can think of. There is no single Open Play game in the way that there is a single GT matched play format, which is why Open Play is a perversion of the concept that should be removed.

The GT Matched Play format changes constantly. It's not the standard format you're pushing it as.

 Blndmage wrote:
The GT Matched Play format changes constantly. It's not the standard format you're pushing it as.

It changes over time. At any given moment there is exactly one GT matched play format and if I say "GT 2000 points" we both know exactly what the rules for the game will be. Open Play has no single set of rules at any given time, saying "Open Play" tells you absolutely nothing about what rules will be used.